Dr. Ch. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi

MVOP No 54 of 2013 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM– JUDGE, FAMILY COURT- CUM–IV ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT ADILABAD

Present: Smt. G.V.N. Bharatha Laxmi, Addl. M.A.C.T.-Cum- Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act cum-V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad FAC:Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday the 30th day of August, 2018

MVOP.NO.54/2013

Between: Syed Almas, S/o Syed Afsar, Aged about 12 years, Occ:Student, R/o Munipally village – Minor Rep. by next friend Syed Afsar, S/o Syed Naseeruddin, Aged about 36 years, Occ:Petty business, R/o Munipally village, Mdl:Laxmanchanda.

.. Petitioner

//And//

1.Dr.Manohar, S/o Narsimulu, Aged: not known Major, Occ:Business & Owner of hire with APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP01V-6895, R/o H.No.2-6-60, Bharmanpuri, Nirmal, Dist.Adilabad.

2.Andhra Pradesh State Road, Transport Corpn, Rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan RTC “X” Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad (Hirer and Possessor of hire with APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP1V-6895).

3.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No.1-13-395/4, IInd Floor, Hero Honda Show Room complex, Vinaynagar, Nizamabad.

(Policy No.433501/31/2011/4378 valid upto 21.10.2011

.. Respondents

This case is coming on 28.08.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri.P.Mohan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Sri.N.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.1 remained exparte and having been stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The minor petitioner through his father-cum-natural guardian filed the present petition U/s. 166 [1] [a] of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 r/w Rule 455 of

APMV Rules, 1989 against the respondents 1 to 3 claiming compensation of

Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident.

MVOP No 54 of 2013 2

2. The brief facts of the petition are that on 18.11.2010 at about 3.45 p.m.

while the minor petitioner was proceeding in Auto bearing No.AP-01-X-0551 from Nirmal to Laxmanchanda and when the said Auto reached near rice mill in the outskirts of Pottapally village, suddenly one hired APSRTC bus bearing

No.AP01V-6895 came in high speed from backside driven rashly and negligently by its driver and came in high speed from backside driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed the above said Auto rickshaw due to which, petitioner sustained fracture of right leg, grievous injury to right foot and left leg, foot and its sole. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Govt.hospital Nirmal where he was inpatient for 15 days and thereafter the petitioner was treated privately at

Nirmal. During the course of treatment n Govt.hospital, Nirmal, POP-cast was applied over his fractured right leg after bone setting and the right leg injuries were treated conservatively and crape bandage was applied to it and on the advice of doctors he took complete bed rest for 4 months and he is still undergoing treatment. The movements of his right leg and ankle joint area are restricted and he is unable to stand and walk properly and suffering a lot. The petitioner sustained permanent partial liability on account of the accident. So far the petitioner has spent Rs.12,000/- as medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- as transport expenses, Rs.4,000/- as attendant, lodging and boarding expenses and Rs.4,000/- as Spl.Diet expenses. As the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of respondent No.1 hired with APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-01-

V-6895, police Laxmanchanda has registered a case in Cr.No.87/2010 for the offence U/sec.337 IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver.

The petitioner was hale and healthy aged about 11 years at the time of accident and was a brilliant student. Due to accidental injuries, he was bed ridden for 6 months and lost his academic year. The petitioner is still undergoing treatment and not fully recovered. The petitioner and his parents

MVOP No 54 of 2013 3 suffered pain, mental agony and heavy loss on account of this accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP 1V-6895 and the respondents No.1 to 3 being the owner, possessor and insurer of the said bus, are jointly and severally liable for compensation claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner claimed for compensation of

Rs.75,000/-.

3. The respondent No.1 remained exparte.

4. The respondent No.2 filed counter by denying the averments of the petition and contended that the petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the driver, insured and insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP01X-0551 in which the petitioner was proceeding are not impleaded in the claim petition who are necessary parties and the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 has insured the said Bus with respondent No.3 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident hence, if any compensation is awarded, the respondents 1 and 3 are only liable to pay the compensation and the claim against respondent No.2 is liable to be dismissed and prayed for the same.

5. The respondent No.3 filed counter by denying the averments of the petition and contended that even though the policy is proved, the same is subject to conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid and subsisting driving licence and the vehicle was not road worthy. It is further contended that the respondent is not aware of the criminal case proceedings launched in this case and the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and arbitrary and prayed to dismiss the petition.

MVOP No 54 of 2013 4

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1.Whether there was any accident on 18.11.2010 at about 3.45 p.m., on road near a Rice Mill at the outskirts of Pottapally village, as alleged by the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Hire with APSRTC bearing No.AP01V-6895 of first respondent or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner?

2.Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and disability as alleged?

3.Whether there was any insurance coverage for the driver of Hire with APSRTC bearing No.AP01V-6895 and if so, does the policy cover the risk of petitioner and if so, was there any breach of policy condition alleged by the second respondent?

4.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of Auto bearing No.AP01X-0551?

5.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation if so, to what extent and against whom?

6.To what relief?

7. After framing of issues, the case was made over to this court from

Prl.District and Sessions Court, Adilabad vide Proc.Dis.No.4412/2014 dated 18.06.2014.

8. The father of minor petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents. The respondent No.1 remained exparte. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not adduce any evidence on its respective behalf.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 6:

9. PW1 has deposed that he is father-cum-natural guardian of his minor son who is petitioner in this case. That 18.11.2010 at about 3.45 p.m. while the minor petitioner was proceeding in Auto bearing No.AP-01-X-0551 from Nirmal to

Laxmanchanda and on the way at the outskirts of Pottapally village, suddenly one hired APSRTC bus bearing No.AP01V-6895 came in high speed from

MVOP No 54 of 2013 5 backside driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the

Auto Rickshaw wherein the minor petitioner was travelling. Due to which, the minor petitioner sustained fracture of right leg, grievous injury to right foot and left leg, foot and its sole. Immediately he was shifted to Govt.hospital Nirmal where he was inpatient for 15 days and thereafter he was treated privately at

Nirmal. During the course of treatment in Govt.hospital, Nirmal, POP-cast was applied over his fractured right leg after bone setting and the right leg injuries were treated conservatively and crape bandage was applied to it. As per the advice of doctors the petitioner has taken treatment 4 months and complete bed but he is not yet recovered and he is still undergoing treatment. The movements of the petitioner is restricted and he is having severe pain in it. Further the movements of left leg of the ankle joint area is also restricted and due to which the petitioner is unable to stand and walk properly and he is suffering a lot.

Thereby the petitioner sustained permanent partial liability on account of this accident. So far the PW1 has spent Rs.12,000/- as medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- as transport expenses, Rs.4,000/- as attendant, lodging and boarding expenses and Rs.4,000/- as Spl.Diet expenses for the treatment of petitioner. The police

Laxmanchanda has registered a case in Cr.No.87/2010 for the offence U/sec.337

IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of hired APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP01V-6895. Further submitted that the petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was aged about 11 years and was a brilliant student.

Due to accidental injuries, the petitioner was bed ridden for 6 months and lost his academic year. Even after the treatment, the petitioner is not recovered fully and suffered pain, mental agony and heavy loss on account of this accident. As such, being the owner, possessor and insurer of hired APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP-01-V-6895, the respondents 1 to 3 severally and jointly liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is claiming compensation an amount of

Rs.75,000/- against all the respondents along with interest and costs.

MVOP No 54 of 2013 6

10. In proof of the claim, the petitioner has got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1:

Attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2: Attested copy of injury certificate, Ex.A3: Xerox copy of APSRTC statistical and ticket accounts record of hire with APSRTC bus bearing No.AP1V-6895, Ex.A4: Xerox copy of RC of Bus bearing No.AP1V6895,

Ex.A5: Xerox copy of driving licence of Bus driver Md.Abdul Rasheed issued by

RTA, Nirmal, Ex.A6: Xerox copy of Insurance policy of the Bus bearing

No.AP01V6895, Ex.A7: Two color photographs with negatives of the petitioner showing the fractured and injured legs, which took on the hospital bed in the

Govt.hospital Nirmal by the photographer of Santosh Digital Lab and Studio,

Opp.Andhra bank, Nirmal.

11. On the other side, the respondent No.1 was set exparte. The counsel for respondents 2 and 3 have reported no evidence.

12. Whereas coming to the contents of Ex.A1, the attested copy of FIR which has revealed the following facts that the Police Station Laxmanchanda has registered the accident in Crime No.87/2010 dated 18.11.2010 under Section 337

IPC basing on the complaint of Sidam Srinivas against the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP01V-6895. In order to rebut the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the respondents have not adduced any evidence thereby basing on

Ex.A1 – Attested copy of FIR coupled with the oral testimony of PW1, it is established by the petitioner that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of hired APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-01V-6895, in the result of which the petitioner has sustained injuries.

13. In respect of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he has got marked

Ex.A2 - Attested copy of injury certificate issued by Govt. hospital, Nirmal. The

MVOP No 54 of 2013 7 petitioner sustained 1) Abrasion 2x3 cm over right lower 2/3rd of leg, 2) Abrasion 4 x 3 cm over right foot, 3) Laceration 1x1/2 and abrasion of 2x2 cm over right foot sole and diagnosed that all the injuries are simple in nature. Further, the injured petitioner can be seen from the photographs marked under Ex.A7.

14. In respect of treatment taken by the petitioner as well as expenses incurred for the treatment of petitioner, no medical record is produced. Further the petitioner has failed to get examine any of the doctor who treated him either in Government hospital, Nirmal or private hospitals and also failed to produce a single medical bill. Therefore, this has been the fact categorically established by the petitioner that due to result of accident, he sustained three simple injuries and he was immediately taken to government hospital, Nirmal and was treated there.

15. Further, the contention of the petitioner is that at the time of accident he was aged 11 years and a student at the time of accident and due to injuries sustained in the accident he became bedridden for 4 months but in proof of the same, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence and also in respect of his age, avocation, income as well as disability, the petitioner have not adduced any evidence thereby any of their contention regarding the above, is not sustainable.

AWARD OF COMPENSATION:

16. Therefore taking into consideration of the above facts the petitioner is awarded compensation an amount of Rs.15,000/- for three simple injuries, a sum of Rs.5,000/- for attendant, transportation and extra nourishment and a sum of

Rs.5,000/- for loss of expectations of life and amenities, loss of pleasure and loss of earnings if any. In total the petitioner is awarded compensation an amount of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

MVOP No 54 of 2013 8

16. Further, the petitioner has got marked Ex.A5 – Xerox copy of driving licence of driver of crime vehicle by name Md.Abdul Rasheed at the material time of accident. Accordingly, the driver of crime bus was having transport driving licence for AR, HGV, HPV and LMV as on the date of accident.

Therefore it can be said that the driver of crime vehicle was holding valid driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the material time of accident. Further the petitioner got marked Ex.A4 – Xerox copy of registration certificate and Ex.A6 –

Xerox copy of insurance policy of crime bus bearing No.AP1V-6895.

Accordingly, the respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the offending bus duly insured with respondent No.3 vide policy No.433501/31/2011/4378 valid from 22.10.2010 to 21.10.2011. Therefore as on the date of accident i.e. 18.11.2010, the policy of the crime vehicle was in force. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the respondent No.3 in respect of violation of terms and conditions of policy, being the insurer of crime APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-01V- 6895, the respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the registered owner/respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

17. Further it is an admitted fact that crime Bus bearing No.AP01V-6895 of respondent No.1 was hired with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident and there is no evidence at all adduced by the petitioner to fix liability on respondent

No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.2 being hirer of crime Bus as on the date of accident has no liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner. As such, being the owner and insurer of crime Bus bearing No.AP01-V-6895, the respondents 1 and 3 are severally and jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and the claim against respondent No.2 is dismissed.

18. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part awarding the compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with simple

MVOP No 54 of 2013 9 interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the original petition till the date of deposit or realization and proportionate costs thereon, directing the respondents Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest and proportionate costs within (30) days from the date of this order and after depositing the same, the father of minor petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation along with costs and accrued interest. The claim against respondent No.2 is dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand Five Hundred only).

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and after correction pronounced by

me in open court on this the 30 th day of August, 2018.

Additional MACT-cum-Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases

Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad FAC:Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1: Syed Afsar -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of Injury certificate Ex.A3: Xerox copy of APSRTC statistical and ticket accounts record of Hire with APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP1V6895 Ex.A4: Xerox copy of RC of Bus bearing No.AP1V6895 Ex.A5: Xerox copy of driving licence of Bus driver Md.Abdul Rasheed issued by RTA, Nirmal. Ex.A6: Xerox copy of Insurance policy of the Bus bearing No.AP01V6895 Ex.A7: Two color photographs with negatives of the petitioner showing the fractured and injured legs, which took on the hospital bed in the Govt.hospital Nirmal by the photographer of Santosh Digital Lab and Studio, Opp.Andhra bank, Nirmal.

For Respondents:

- Nil –

Additional MACT-cum-Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases

Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad FAC:Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD

Present: G.V.N.Bharatha Laxmi, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act – Cum- V Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad FAC:Judge, Family Court- Cum- IV Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Wednesday, the 29th day of August, 2018.

Crl.M.P.No.871/2018

In Cr.No.50/2018 of PS Srirampur

Between: Mekala Rajashaker, S/o Rajam, Age:28 years, Caste:Yadav, Occ:Electrician, R/o Narsingapur-B village, Mandal:Bheemaram, now at Arunakkanagar, Srirampur, Dist:Mancherial.

.. Petitioner/accused No.1

//AND//

The State of Telangana through the SHO of PS Srirampur.

.. Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on before me for hearing on 28.08.2018 in the presence of Sri.S.Devidas, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri.Sanjay Kumar Vairagare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and on hearing, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying the court to enlarge the Petitioner/A1 on regular bail.

2.The petitioner is Accused No.1 in Cr.No.50/2018 of PS Srirampur for the offence punishable U/secs.302, 304-B r/w 109 IPC and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 29.05.2018 and is in District-Jail, Adilabad.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless and the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence and he is falsely implicated in this case due to political grudges. It is further submitted that the investigation is completed by examining material witnesses and if the petitioner is not enlarged on bail, he will be put to irreparable loss and hence prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other side notice given to the learned Addl.PP, he reported that the investigation is completed.

5. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner/A1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail?

6. P O I N T: On perusal of remand case diary, it is seen that the petitioner are Accused No.1 in Cr.No.50/2018 of PS Srirampur for the offence punishable

U/secs.302, 304-B r/w 109 IPC and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 29.05.2018 and is in District-Jail, Adilabad. As reported by Additional

Public Prosecutor, the investigation is completed by examining the material witnesses. Therefore, even he is enlarged on bail, there will be no apprehension and no chance to tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses as well as the investigation. Hence decide this point in favour of Petitioner/A1.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the Petitioner/A1 is directed to be enlarged on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mancherial. The petitioner is further directed to appear before the concerned police station on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., till further orders.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in open court on this the 29 th day of August, 2018.

FAC: Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Copy to:

1.The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad.

2.The I Addl. J.F.C.M., Mancherial.

3.The SHO of PS Srirampur.

4.Sri.S.Devidas, Advocate for petitioner (on payment of usual charges)

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT ADILABAD

Present: Smt. Ch. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi, IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge-Cum-,

Judge, Family Court, Adilabad.

Monday, this the 3rd day of April, 2017

Crl.M.P.No.234/2017

In Cr. No.17/2017 of PS Nennel

Between:

1.Md. Kavitha @ Taslim, W/o. Apsar, Age: 25 years, Caste: Lambada, converted Muslim, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Narwaipet village of Nennel Mandal

2.Md. Bibi @ Rehana, W/o. Nayeem, Age: 40 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Narwaipet village of Nennel Mandal

.. Petitioners/A2 and A3

a n d

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O P.S. Nennel

.. Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 03.04.2017 before me for hearing this day in the presence of Sri G. Chandra Mohan, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri C. Mruthyunjaya,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and on hearing this court made the following:

O R D E R

Heard the arguments of the petitioners. Heard the arguments of Mr. PP.

Mr. PP reported that investigation has not been completed and still it is going on.

Considering that the investigation has not been completed. Hence petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence petition is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 3rd day of April, 2017

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge- Cum- Judge Family Court, Adilabad

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS COURT:: ADILABAD.

Present: Smt.GVN Bharatha Laxmi, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act- cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC: Judge,Family Court-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Adilabad.

Thursday the 30st day of August 2018

MVOP.502/2012

Between:-

Shaik Qadeeruddin, S/o Ahmeduddin, Age 42 years, Occ:Owner of Qualis bearing No.MH-41-C-386, R/o.Echoda Village and Mandal, District Adilabad.

…..Petitioner

//A N D//

1)K.Madhukar. S/o Vishwanadam, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP-01-0545, R/o H.No. 1-2-42/2 Vishwananda Agencies, Main Road, Both Village and Mandal, District Adilabad.

2)United India Insurance Company Limited

Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer, D.No.6-6-4/1/7, Bhothapur, N.H.No.7 road, Adilabad. Vide Policy No. 051900/31/09/02/00002649, Valid from 22-10-2009 to 21-10-2010.

….Respondents

This Petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri S.Sudheer Kumar Advocate for the petitioner, and Sri.K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 set exparte having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

DOCKET ORDER DATED.30.08.2018

Counsel for petitioner filed a memo stating that petition is not pressed.

Hence this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

FAC: Judge,Family Court-Cum-IV Addl.

District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT ADILABAD

Present: Smt. Ch. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi, IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge-Cum-,

Judge, Family Court, Adilabad.

Monday, this the 3rd day of April, 2017

Crl.M.P.No.253/2017

In Cr. No.17/2017 of PS Nennel

Between:

Md. Saleha, W/o. Hakeem, Age: 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Narvaipet village of Nennel Mandal

.. Petitioner/A1

a n d

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O P.S. Nennel

.. Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 03.04.2017 before me for hearing this day in the presence of Sri A.A. Raheem, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri C. Mruthyunjaya, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and on hearing this court made the following:

O R D E R

Heard the arguments of the petitioner and heard the arguments of Mr. PP.

Mr. PP reported that investigation is not completed and still it is going on.

Considering that the investigation has not been completed. Hence petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence petition is dismissed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 3rd day of April, 2017

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge- Cum- Judge Family Court, Adilabad